Re: [Tagging] Proposal for standardization of sidewalk schema (+ import)

[Philip Barnes]

On Mon, 2016-08-01 at 14:35 -0700, Meg Drouhard wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Our team is proposing a standardization of sidewalk tagging
> conventions in OSM to simplify pedestrian network annotations and
> better represent the physical reality of sidewalk ways.  This
> proposal is particularly concerned with features of sidewalks that
> may aid or impede travel for people with limited mobility.
> 
> Our schema proposal is available here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/
> wiki/Proposed_features/sidewalk_schema.
> 
> You can also read more about our project and group here: www.openside
> walks.com.
> 
> Through the Imports list, we are also proposing to jump start
> sidewalk annotation by importing open municipal data from the city of
> Seattle (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Seattle,_Washington/Sidew
> alk_Import).
> 
> We appreciate any feedback you may have either through our discussion
> pages or by email.
> 
> 
The first problem I see is that mapping sidewalks as a separate way
should not be done unless there is a physical separation. For a
pedestrian the sidewalk is a part of the road. 

Mapping as separate ways can mess up routing for pedestrians who can
cross the road wherever they wish.

Mapping in the way you propose would leave the problem of where a
mapper would then place sufficient 'imaginary' crossings to not break
pedestrian routing

Phil (trigpoint)


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] bus networks in Hong Kong

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 01 ago 2016, alle ore 17:51, Michael Tsang  ha 
> scritto:
> 
> What should I type in for the network=* tag for the bus routes such that it 
> is least surprising and least confusing for data users?


You have written a lot about operators, but these go into the operator tag on 
the relation, the network is more about fares I think: if you can use the same 
kind of tickets it's the same network.


cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Proposal for standardization of sidewalk schema (+ import)

[Meg Drouhard]

Hello,

Our team is proposing a standardization of sidewalk tagging conventions in
OSM to simplify pedestrian network annotations and better represent the
physical reality of sidewalk ways.  This proposal is particularly concerned
with features of sidewalks that may aid or impede travel for people with
limited mobility.

Our schema proposal is available here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/sidewalk_schema.

You can also read more about our project and group here:
www.opensidewalks.com.

Through the Imports list, we are also proposing to jump start sidewalk
annotation by importing open municipal data from the city of Seattle (
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Seattle,_Washington/Sidewalk_Import).

We appreciate any feedback you may have either through our discussion pages
or by email .

Thanks,

Meg Drouhard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Formal proposal: access=permit

[Kevin Kenny]

Given the length of the thread about how to tag lands accessed by permit,
and the fragmentation of the ideas therein, I've decided to advance a
formal proposal for an 'access=permit' tag.

I've placed a draft at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/access%3Dpermit

I'll wait a couple of weeks for any discussion on the talk page to die
down, and once it seems to be stable, I'll send out a request for voting.
In any case, the request will be sent no sooner than 15 August 2016.

I hope that people will refrain from opposing the proposal on the ground
that the requirement is already well served by 'access=private'. I hope
that the proposal has made an adequate distinction between the two cases.
Several other users in this thread have joined me in a desire to render the
two access conditions differently on our own maps. Obviously, nothing that
is to be rendered differently can be tagged alike.

I've "jumped the gun" a bit and started using 'foot=permit', etc. on
features that I've added as part of an effort to rationalize the geometry
and tagging of protected areas in New York State. Nevertheless, I have
scripts that can readily recover all the ways and relations that I've
tagged with it, and a fairly small mechanical edit can revise the tagging
to whatever modified scheme is accepted.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (midwife)

[David Picard]

How about healthcare=midwife ?

Le 01/08/2016 17:13, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :


2016-08-01 17:03 GMT+02:00 David Picard >:

I think your proposal should be more explicit about the actual
tagging
you propose (key=value, possibly in bold text).


I don't understand what you mean here. I have no experience with OSM.



it was a suggestion regarding your layout of the page, right now I have
difficulties seeing which actual tag is proposed, or in other words,
which "key" and which "value" should be used to indicate the feature you
describe. These should stand out a little bit more to make it clearer
(just a suggestion).

Cheers,
Martin




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] bus networks in Hong Kong

[Michael Tsang]

Hi all,

I have trouble filling the network=* key on bus routes in Hong Kong.

According to the wiki page, "On route relations[1] for bus, railway, and tram 
service routes[2], 
this key indicates the bus system, if applicable. There is currently no 
consensus whether the 
values should be abbreviated or not. " However, as a user, I am not sure how 
the "bus 
system" (i.e. name of the network) is defined here.

I believe a common consensus is that, within a network, a ref=* number should 
be enough to 
identify a service. Therefore, the bus routes in Hong Kong cannot be considered 
to be a single 
network since there are different route 1 buses on Hong Kong Island, in Kowloon 
and on 
Lantau Island. This worked in the past, because Hong Kong Island, Kowloon and 
Lantau Island 
were separate entities (not connected by roads) before 1973. There were, in 
total, 3 bus 
networks across Hong Kong, clearly defined: Hong Kong Island (operated by CMB), 
Kowloon & 
NT (operated by KMB) and Lantau Island (operated by what became NLB today)

In legal terms, the bus routes are organised into "franchises", where each 
franchise is 
operated by a single company with designated fleet of buses. There is a 
separate legal 
document describing the official routing and the fare table for each franchise 
(which may be 
different between franchises). There are, in total, 6 franchises in Hong Kong 
(2 by Citybus, 1 
by NWFB, KMB, NLB, LWB), which encompass all bus routes. Therefore, it may be 
logical to 
use the name of the franchise for the "bus network". However, in reality, the 
same bus route 
may belong simultaneously to 2 franchises, for example, most cross-harbour 
routes such as 
101, 102, etc., where they are jointly operated by the operators of those 
franchises.

In terms of official passenger information (including booklets, websites and 
smartphone apps), 
there are 3 networks as seen from the user's perspective, offered by the 
respective operators: 
Citybus & NWFB (the operations of these 2 companies are integrated); KMB & LW 
(ditto), and 
NLB. For example, you can search for routes 1, 118 and 796C, but not 296C in 
Citybus & 
NWFB website; and you can search for routes 1, 118, 296C but not 796C in KMB 
website. 
However, route 1 are different between the result of these websites (because in 
reality both 
companies operates a different route 1), but route 118 are the same between the 
results 
(because in reality route 118 is jointly operated by both companies).

In terms of geographic location, it is logical to divide the whole Hong Kong 
into the different 
networks, each without duplicate numbers inside:
* Hong Kong Island
* Kowloon & NT
* Lantau Island
* Cross-harbour (between Hong Kong Island and Kowloon)
* Airport and N Lantau External (between Airport / Lantau and the rest of the 
territory)
However, people seldom explicitly refer to bus routes like "Hong Kong Island 
route 1", etc. 
because the qualifier is implicit in real world usage. For example, if you are 
told, in Stanley, to 
take number 6 bus to the terminus, ride the Star Ferry, and take number 6 bus 
to visit 
Nathan Road, you would know that they refer to different buses, one on Hong 
Kong Island, 
the other in Kowloon. In the rare circumstances where the qualifier is not 
implicitly known, 
most people would use the name of operator (e.g. Citybus route 6) for that.

What should I type in for the network=* tag for the bus routes such that it is 
least surprising 
and least confusing for data users?

Michael
-- 
Sent from KMail


[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route
[2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Public_transport#Public_transport_routes
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (midwife)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-08-01 17:03 GMT+02:00 David Picard :

> I think your proposal should be more explicit about the actual tagging
>> you propose (key=value, possibly in bold text).
>>
>
> I don't understand what you mean here. I have no experience with OSM.



it was a suggestion regarding your layout of the page, right now I have
difficulties seeing which actual tag is proposed, or in other words, which
"key" and which "value" should be used to indicate the feature you
describe. These should stand out a little bit more to make it clearer (just
a suggestion).

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (midwife)

[David Picard]

Hi,


Le 01/08/2016 à 11:15, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :


2016-07-31 19:21 GMT+02:00 David Picard >:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/midwife

Definition: a midwife practising as a licensed professional in
an office



I think your proposal should be more explicit about the actual tagging
you propose (key=value, possibly in bold text).


I don't understand what you mean here. I have no experience with OSM.


Also the definition
leaves a lot of uncertainty (is this a about an office or a practice, or
is this the same in this context? Is it for the place where
examinations/birth is happening or is it for an administrative place, or
both?) Is this only for standalone features, or also for midwifes
associated to a clinic or hospital?


I guess it depends a lot on the country ! For example, in France, the 
only definition is : a place where a woman can exercise and get prepared 
for childbirth, get cured for a range of gynaecological problems (from 
puberty to end of life), get prescription for contraceptives, be taken 
care of before and after childbirth. It is NOT a place to give birth. 
Midwives who run a place like this in France are not linked to a clinic 
nor hospital.



Why do you require "licensed" (think
of places where public administration works worse, maybe they don't have
official licenses for midwifes).


I am not an English speaker. I meant an independent worker like a 
doctor, a lawyer, etc. running his own business. But maybe this can be 
just removed, so as to be more generic.




I also don't like the limitation to nodes, these will always have a
spatial extension, so allowing to tag them on areas as well seems
reasonable.



I don't really see why, but again, I have no experience with OSM...


Cheers,
Martin


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (midwife)

[David Picard]

Hi,


Le 01/08/2016 à 11:15, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :


2016-07-31 19:21 GMT+02:00 David Picard >:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/midwife

Definition: a midwife practising as a licensed professional in
an office



I think your proposal should be more explicit about the actual tagging
you propose (key=value, possibly in bold text).


I don't understand what you mean here. I have no experience with OSM.


Also the definition
leaves a lot of uncertainty (is this a about an office or a practice, or
is this the same in this context? Is it for the place where
examinations/birth is happening or is it for an administrative place, or
both?) Is this only for standalone features, or also for midwifes
associated to a clinic or hospital?


I guess it depends a lot on the country ! For example, in France, the 
only definition is : a place where a woman can exercise and get prepared 
for childbirth, get cured for a range of gynaecological problems (from 
puberty to end of life), get prescription for contraceptives, be taken 
care of before and after childbirth. It is NOT a place to give birth. 
Midwives who run a place like this in France are not linked to a clinic 
nor hospital.



Why do you require "licensed" (think
of places where public administration works worse, maybe they don't have
official licenses for midwifes).


I am not an English speaker. I meant an independent worker like a 
doctor, a lawyer, etc. running his own business. But maybe this can be 
just removed, so as to be more generic.




I also don't like the limitation to nodes, these will always have a
spatial extension, so allowing to tag them on areas as well seems
reasonable.



I don't really see why, but again, I have no experience with OSM...


Cheers,
Martin


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - learner driver

[Michael Tsang]

Voting for learner driver proposal:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/learner_driver

Michael
-- 
Sent from KMail

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (midwife)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-07-31 19:21 GMT+02:00 David Picard :

> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/midwife
>
> Definition: a midwife practising as a licensed professional in an
> office
>


I think your proposal should be more explicit about the actual tagging you
propose (key=value, possibly in bold text). Also the definition leaves a
lot of uncertainty (is this a about an office or a practice, or is this the
same in this context? Is it for the place where examinations/birth is
happening or is it for an administrative place, or both?) Is this only for
standalone features, or also for midwifes associated to a clinic or
hospital? Why do you require "licensed" (think of places where public
administration works worse, maybe they don't have official licenses for
midwifes).

I also don't like the limitation to nodes, these will always have a spatial
extension, so allowing to tag them on areas as well seems reasonable.

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging